Transparency? What transparency?

It's becoming increasingly obvious to us that what government believes tax dollars pay for isn't the same as what the public believes.

Gov. Jerry Brown - who we think has done a better job running the state than did his predecessor - reminded us of that once again. In his budget proposal, the governor wants those who access court records to pay $10 per search.

That's right, $10.

As our sister paper, the Contra Costa Times pointed out, this is "such a bad idea on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin." Every election cycle we hear candidates from all sides - at every level of government - pander to voters claiming to support the notion of transparency. It's a little humorous to us, because politicians usually want the other guy to be more open to the public - obviously hoping for transparency will lead to some information that can help defeat the other official.

But when it comes to true transparency, no public official really wants it. That's why they campaign for it, but rarely follow through on it.

So Brown's call to charge the public $10 to access documents may not be seen as an attack on transparency, but it is. And it's also a sign that government doesn't believe that taxpayers really own the documents - that somehow they weren't produced with taxpayer money - which they were. So it would appear that the $10 fee is meant to price many people out of the market - especially poorer defendants. One example put forth by our sister paper notes that one court case alone could cost a paper up to $100,000 in document searches.

But it isn't just defendants who would lose. It's anyone doing a background check, from employers to homeowners who are checking out a possible tenant.

The people of California already own all of these records, and making us pay for them twice is an affront to the idea of an open government. If we need to decrease costs, then we suggest a commitment to putting more records online. Not only will such a move allow more people to have access to public records, but would make the cost of producing them far cheaper.

If it means a statewide overhaul of our computer system, might we suggest redirecting the money now being spent on the alleged "high-speed" Internet to that endeavor?